Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Why not believe?

Posted on: January 28, 2008 - 10:07pm

jesusFREAK41

Posts: 16

Joined: 2008-01-14

Offline

Why not believe?

Heres the thing:

The basic reason for most peoples' disbelief in God is that they don't see evidence of God. They say because they don't hear any booming voices or see something crazy and some because they feel like if there was a God, their life would be so much better, or the world in general. There are other reasons, but this is besides the point. The fact is, atheists don't accept the evidence right in front of them. There is an entire world, galaxy, and universe around us. God's evidence is in His creation. Trees, mountains, the ocean, stars, galaxies, and the people reading this post right now are all part of God's creation. For there to be creation, there must be a Creator; a cause for the effect. Now, you can say that all this came as a result of the "Big Bang," but that had to come from something, too. Existence didn't just happen, something had to start it. Since this site is called 'rational,' let's be rational for a second. How could something come out of nothing? How could this immense universe just spontaneously exist? Believing in an all- powerful God you can't see seems to make more sense than believing everything we know to exist just happened or came to be. You may be able to poke holes of discrepancy into Theism, but God can take the root out of Atheism.

Who created the creator? Well? Who the fuck created the fucking creator? Why does your "logic" end with your creator being able to just exist but nothing else being able to just exist. Who the fuck created the creator? And when you come up with the answer to that give some thought to who created the creator that created that other creator...

Please pull your head from your rectom and give me an answer. My "soul" is waiting to be "saved".

Lenny

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush

The basic reason for most peoples' disbelief in God is that they don't see evidence of God.

Do you have a basis for saying this? There could be a different reason, or no reason at all, for nonbelievers to be so. I'd like to avoid these unsubstantiated declarations on principle. Onward...

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

They say because they don't hear any booming voices or see something crazy and some because they feel like if there was a God, their life would be so much better, or the world in general.

This is another assumption. A conflict between religious claims and the scientific method is we don't have any phenomena to explore that either haven't been explained naturally, or would benefit from the insertion of a supernatural agent. Based on many descriptions given for supernatural agencies, there isn't a way to determine this: an omnipresent entity allows no comparison, so we have nothing to compare a thing affected by a god to one not. An omnipotent being could do whatever it likes on a whim, so again this admits no basis for comparison between what a thing affected by, and not affected by, a god would be. If we add omniscience to the description, any action by such a being becomes totally unjustifiable, as action and inaction would be undifferentiated from its perspective.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

There are other reasons, but this is besides the point. The fact is, atheists don't accept the evidence right in front of them. There is an entire world, galaxy, and universe around us. God's evidence is in His creation. Trees, mountains, the ocean, stars, galaxies, and the people reading this post right now are all part of God's creation. For there to be creation, there must be a Creator; a cause for the effect. Now, you can say that all this came as a result of the "Big Bang," but that had to come from something, too. Existence didn't just happen, something had to start it.

You're begging the question.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

Since this site is called 'rational,' let's be rational for a second. How could something come out of nothing? How could this immense universe just spontaneously exist?

This is a false dilemma, and argument from ignorance.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

Believing in an all- powerful God you can't see seems to make more sense than believing everything we know to exist just happened or came to be.

If it explained anything, science and theology would be one field.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

You may be able to poke holes of discrepancy into Theism, but God can take the root out of Atheism.

We only know of your god through theists, so the distinction is unjustified.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

-Jesus Christ

You can edit your signature under your account preferences. You don't need to write this every time.

Who created the creator? Well? Who the fuck created the fucking creator? Why does your "logic" end with your creator being able to just exist but nothing else being able to just exist. Who the fuck created the creator? And when you come up with the answer to that give some thought to who created the creator that created that other creator...

Please pull your head from your rectom and give me an answer. My "soul" is waiting to be "saved".

There is nothing illogical about the idea that god is not created but that this little section of reality called our universe was created. It does not follow that an uncreated entity is incapable of creation. Your are assuming that all existence is either uncaused or caused. These are not mutually exclusive. And of course evidence of that entity's existence and the subsequent causation of this uiniverse is a different question.

Those who have read Joseph Heller’s famous novel will know of what we call in logic a Catch-22. The idea behind it has been understood for quite some time, simply put:

C=>(A^B)

(A =>~B)

(B =>~A)

This is basic logic notation. Preconditions A and B are both necessary for outcome C, but if A, then B cannot occur, and conversely, if B, then A cannot occur, hence, C can never occur. In Joseph Heller’s book, the Catch-22 was that to leave the air force, you had to be insane and you had to request to leave. But if you are genuinely insane, there is no way you can request to leave, conversely, if you request to leave, there is no way you can be genuinely insane. So, you are stuck. It’s also known as a no-win situation.

We have a similar situation here. There are two necessary preconditions that make God a necessary and coherent postulate that the Cosmological Argument may work.

A: Cause requires time (which there cannot be an infinite regress of)

B: The universe (of which time is a physical component) was caused

C: The Universe was caused by an entity outside of time

The a posteriori observation for the argument comes from the necessity of time for cause, such that infinite regress is impossible, the other postulation is that the universe was caused under the proposition that all things need a cause. This is a Catch-22.

If causality requires time, then it is impossible that time was caused. If time was caused, then it we cannot speak of causality requiring time, therefore the Universe being caused by something outside of time cannot occur, because A cannot occur if B and nor can B occur if A. C (the outcome) cannot occur since it necessarily postulates that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause because cause requires time, without that proposition we could not speak of the necessity of the God being, because these are the grounds on which the Cosmological Argument is being propagated! We cannot reference regress without referencing time, ergo, we cannot reference regress of cause without referencing regress of time. Yet postulation B specifically states that it is necessary to postulate the Prime Mover on grounds that the universe of which time is a component was…caused. If this proposition were not true, the Primum Movens would not be a sensible proposition. But it cannot occur if A occurs, since A postulates the opposite and A cannot occur if it occurs, but both of these postulations are necessary for C (the outcome), being the universe being caused by an entity outside of time.

The paradox here is “cause of cause”. Cause, per se, requires time as a substrate (the idea of the “cause of time” is insurmountable, like “north of the north pole”. When we speak of cause we are speaking of a correlation between two events A and B where there is temporal sequence between such events that A may “cause” B. Hence, what precisely does it mean to say that an entity outside of time could be the cause of such an event as what is essentially the beginning of cause itself? Surely, we have set up a greatly insurmountable paradox. We cannot reference causality without referring to time, and hence the notion of an atemporal being as the cause of cause is inherently absurd. An atemporal being, by definition, cannot cause anything or indeed execute any action since both notions necessarily refer to the substrate of time in which they may occur. Furthermore, the notion is essentially appealing to “cause of cause” which is inherently absurd. How do we intend to reference causality by the invocation of an atemporal entity?’

Furthermore, your initial assumption from whence your conclusion derives is a falsehood. You said the BB suggested and hence atheists believe that the universe was created ex nihilo. This is false. Allow me to introduce you to Cosmology 101:

The Big Bang does not contradict the laws of either conservation or thermodynamics. It aligns with them. Your assertion regarding the Big Bang regarding ex nihilo is incorrect.. If the BB did describe such things, it would lead to an internal contradiction which would lead to a paradigm shift within physics, much the same way that the contradiction between Newtonian Kinematics and Electromagnetism lead to Relativity. It hasn’t, because there is no contradiction!

The Big Bang is derived from three primary sources:

-The Hubble Metric

-The Einstein Field Equations

-The Cosmic Background Radiation

The first is quite simple. The universe is expanding. That is to say the space-time is expanding, and so the matter within. This tumbles neatly out of the Lorentz transforms and the Einstein field equations. Einstein originally inserted an ad hoc constant which took this form:

R(uv)=-0.5Rg(uv)+ 8pi(pvac)(g)(uv)=8pi)G)/c^4)T(uv)

Where G is the gravitational constant

Pvac is the density function in the vacuum (empty space) where R is the function of topology of the space-time metric, as is g,

The universe is expanding. This means that all cosmological bodies are moving away from each other. As a result of this recessional velocity, the wavelengths as observed from other bodies from which the ones being measured are receding from will shift, and become greater. Hubble’s Law states that the amount of redshift is directly proportional to distance

At small distances, the acceleration of the universe is cancelled out by gravity (Newton’s inverse square law), which means that they will be moving towards each other. As a result, observers of these bodies should see blueshift, which is the opposite of redshift. Since the body is moving closer to the observer, the wavelength will compress, not expand. However, for the purpose of this exercise, this is immaterial, since we will not be looking at short distance cosmology.

Omega: That the universe is expanding depends on the density of the universe, and the two constants associated, Omega (Ω) and Lambda (λ). This is not to be confused with Lambda in physics, which represents wavelength. In cosmology it has another meaning. At any rate, Newton’s equations, which work perfectly until they disintegrate at the quantum level, dictate that all material bodies have a force of attraction between them which is precisely inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them and the size of the body in question. This is Newton’s Inverse Square Law. Since Einsten’s General Relativity, we have understood that this works because gravity is caused by the distorting effect of material on spacetime, However, surely this means that all material bodies should quickly rush towards each other and crush into a fiery pinprick? No. The reason for this is because the universe, as in space-time itself, is expanding. As we have discovered, the universe is expanding due to Dark matter. Now, this is where Omega comes into play. The density of matter in the universe will determine Omega. Since all material bodies attract, and the expansion of space time forces them apart, there is a fight between Dark Energy and matter, and the density of matter over the universe will determine its ultimate fate.

Now, if Omega is precisely zero, then the acceleration of the universe and the gravity of matter will be in precise equilibrium and thus the universe will expand at a precise constant rate. If Omega is smaller than one then the expansion of the universe will wind down, and if it is precisely one, the universe will simply wind down and stop expanding, and if Omega is greater than one, then the density of matter will be overpowering and the universe will accelerate and then crush back into a fiery pinprick, as the universe rushes backwards into a fiery pinprick by parabolic expansion and then contraction.

We have discovered by means of measuring the redshift of supernovae, that none of these things are happening. The universe is not constantly expanding, decelerating, or contracting. In fact, it is accelerating in expansion, which is given by the dotted line on the graph marked accelerating.

The Metric Expansion of Space: this is the most accurate and current model of the universe to date. The expansion of space-time overpowers gravity and hence accelerates in expansion. We can determine the rate at which space-time accelerates using Hubble’s constant. Then, by extrapolating backwards, we can determine the precise time at which the universe began to expand, in other words, if we have the value of acceleration of the universe, we can work backwards and determine the moment of expansionon that graph, when the distance between all material beings was negligible, in other words, we can work out when the Big Bang occurred.

Cosmological Redshift: There are many different types of redshift. There is the Relativistic Doppler Effect, where redshift is caused by the relative velocity of two bodies from each other (this is the effect of Special Relativity), there is gravitational redshift, caused by the distortion of space time by material bodies, but these do not matter at cosmological distances. What we need to look at is cosmological redshift, that is, the redshift caused by the expansion of space-time, this is the only form of redshift which has measurable consequences at cosmological distances.

When we examine distant galaxies, we discover they are moving away from us at a calculable rate. Based on the distance they are from us, the wavelength of light from them which we are observing also changes by a calculable amount. The recessional velocity (the speed at which other galaxies are moving away from us), the distance which galaxies are from us, the redshift, or change in wavelength as a result of this recession and distance, and lastly, the acceleration or the rate at which the velocity is increasing, are all linked by several simple equations, and from this we can easily determine the age of the universe, or rather, how long ago the point was that there was no distance between the two receding bodies, the moment of the Big Bang. Firstly,

v=HD

This is the simplest equation we must understand. The recessional velocity (the speed at which a body is moving from Earth) is directly proportional to the distance it is from us. What connects them is Hubble’s constant, which is exactly what we need to find out.

Now, what I am doing is unusual. It is perfectly accurate to determine the age of the universe using redshift and Hubble’s constant. But most cosmologists prefer the Friedman-Lemaitaire-Walker Metric, derived from Freidmann’s equations. However, these are mathematically vastly more complex than the simple equations which we are about to use (and they in turn are derived from Einstein’ solutions to general relativity, which are also very complex).

Anyway, v=HD can be rearranged to find Hubble’s constant based on the recessional velocity and distance of an observed galaxy, where we have: H=(v/D).

Also, the recessional velocity with respect to time (ie the time between the intervals measured) can be given by differentiation: dD/dT.

Hubble’s constant, the acceleration of the universe, is given in km/s/Mpc, as is v.

The next principle we must understand is z, z is the change in wavelength as observed due to the recession of galaxies. It is defined as( λemitted x λobserved/λemitted). There are simple equations which link v, z, and H, but they only work for close galaxies. When the galaxies measured are too distant, any model which uses z for estimation of Hubble’s parameter must detail the precise change in z, D, and H due to the fact that the light has taken so long to get to Earth. But for close galaxies, these paramaters will not have changed much, so we can estimate v using v=zc, where c is the speed of light. We will not be doing this. For one, close galaxies blueshift due to gravity, which also, obviously, totally distorts any result we may glean by cosmological redshift.

This means that I have to use the scale factor of the LRMW metric in order to derive an accurate result. We can calculate the distance to galaxies using Cepheid variables. We can calculate their recessional velocity using the amount by which the light has shifted. The problem is that the measurements the Cepheids give us will not account for the present position of the galaxy since the light from the Cepheids set out to Earth many millions of years ago for distant galaxies. However, if Hubble’s Law holds, this does not matter, because the acceleration of the universe is expressed as a constant, and we should still be able to use this data to extrapolate back into the Big Bang.

Now, for cosmological redshift, the formula given is:

1+z= (anow/athen).

a is the universe scale factor. The physical distance between commoving objects is given by L=λa(t), which is rearranged to give a(t)= L/λ

This can be expressed via Hubble’s Law (distance proportional to redshift) using this formula:

H=a2(t)/a1(t), where t is the time derivative of the equation

We are beginning to see how the expansion of the universe, redshift, wavelength, the distance and recessional velocities of galaxies and the time taken for this to occur all tie together and all converge to give us the age of the universe. a or the scale factor is a simple ratio of wavelength emitted: wavelength received, which allows us to account for the change over large times. If the wavelength of light which we receive from a star is twice its original wavelength, that means that the universe in terms of space-time has doubled in size since that photon left the body which emitted it. This is because cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of space-time itself, which stretches the wavelength of light being emitted over long distances.

We will be examining standard candles later, ie Cepheid variables, but the best way to determine the absolute magnitude of an object, the very best standard candles are Type Ia supernovae. It was using observations from these from the Chiandri telescope that we first realized the universe is accelerating. The output of light from a Type 1a is always the same, and so we can use it to determine absolute magnitude and distance, and by taking pictures over several days and weeks of massive type 1a supernovae, we realized first that the universe is accelerating.

Recall that redshift is just received λ /emitted λ. This ratio is called z. Multiplying z by light speed gives us distance, however this is not as accurate as the directly proportional relationship of distance given by Hubble’s constant.

Really, I ought to be calculating the age of the universe using the Friedmann equations, and the integration of H with the three Omega constants. I can do this, but it is ridiculously complex, and there is no need to put it in this paper. Once we have H, we can determine age as a function of acceleration of the universe, but we do not need to do that either, we can just extrapolate backwards once we have distance and acceleration, it is H that we are looking for

Hubble’s constant is hotly debated, but based on the present data, the COBE estimates place it around 71km/s/Mpc. Note that we determined this by observing Type 1a supernovae using exactly the simple formula I outlined after calculating the redshift:

v=HD, 1+z=(anow/athen), zc=Ho, and a(t)= L/λ, and H=a2(t)/a1(t). There are multiple ways, as we have seen, to express Hubble’s constant: As functions of velocity, distance, the FLRW metric, and z. As of 2007, all expressive functions of H are in concurrence. It is definitely between 50-90, and precisely where was hotly debated for some time. Now our equipment is very accurate and we have narrowed it down significantly and the best data indicates it is 71.

We need to find q, that is the parameter of acceleration, and in terms of Hubble’s constant, it is:

Q=-H^-2((dH/dt)+H^2)

Now, we have known since 1998 that q is a negative value, and this value must be integrated (not figuratively, as in literally integrated mathematically by means of the ∫ operator), and extrapolate from when the commoving horizon was zero, the moment of the Big Bang.

It is useful to know the 71km/s/Mpc value because it allows us our extrapolation. It allows us to calculate useful values like the Hubble length and the Hubble time. The Hubble lengths is a good value to work with, and is simply the c/Hubble Time, where the Hubble Time is 1/H0. These are crude ways to measure the age of the universe, but are helpful if you want to demonstrate the age of the universe using a calculator and a pen and a data table as opposed to a satellite. If Hubble length is c/H(t), where H(t)=1/H, then H(l)=Htc, which is 300,000/71=approximately 4220 Mpc, since we are working in km/s/Mpc. 4220Mpc is converted into light years by the fact that 1 Megaparsec is 3,262,000 light years, from which we derive: 1.37x10^10 light years or 13.7 billion ly.

Hubble Time is also useful as a rough estimate of the universe's age. The Hubble Time is a useful function of the recessional velocity, where if v=HD, then 1/H=d/v. Since it is a reciprocal, we have to reverse all of the units, and so (converting 71km/s/Mpc to 20km/s/Mly makes it easier), we have to reverse everything, so we end up with 10^6 light years per megalight year, and 9.5x10^12 km per light year, which can be demonstrated like this:

The reason we need to add the 10^6 is because the second reciprocal has been changed to km/ly as opposed to km/Mly. This just makes it a lot easier. And since the H constant is in seconds, we need to express the function in seconds. One year contains 3.15x10^7 seconds Now:

1/20x10^6x9.5x10^12x 1/3.15x10^7, which becomes roughly 1.45x10^10 years, or 14.5 billion years. As you can see, this is a crude method, but is good for quick calculation.

However, this function is only a rough estimate of the age of the universe, since H is not actually constant. However, this is not really any sort of concern regarding the scale of the length of time. A significantly lower H constant yields a higher value of 16 billion, while a much higher H constant of 90 (50-90 are generally considered as the lower and upper bounds on the constant), then we derive 9 billion.

The final thing to consider is that The Big Bang theory dictates that the universe expanded outwards from an immensely and uniformly hot and extremely dense point which expanded outwards in accordance with thermodynamics, this means that as the spatiotemporal fabric expanded, the universe and its matter cooled greatly, very quickly in fact. The average temperature in the universe is 2.7K, which is -270 C. Since the universe is homogenous, what we should see is an afterglow, a faint radiative microwave background that dates back to the Big Bang (recall what I said about light showing us the past), the fluctuations of which became everything we see around us.

The cosmic background radiation is the most distant and old thing that humans have ever observed. The universe was initially opaque but as it cooled and spread out, it became black roughly 380,000 years After The Big Bang. The microwave background, in other words, is a picture of what the entire universe looked like just moments after the original expansion, and a COBE photograph of it was taken by spectroscopes and microwave radiation probes by a device called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

None of these support the idea, in any way, shape, or form, that BB describes anything other than a phase transition. None whatsoever. Your ideas and understanding are completely flawed. All the Big Bang theory states is that the universe expanded outwards 13.7 billion years ago from a very dense, extremely low entropy prior state. Many theists miscontrue the Big Bang as ex nihilo, "out of nothing". It is not the case. There are certain models postulating pre-Big Bang occurances, the boundary condition in Hartele-Hawking, brane cosmology, etc. But the BB itself says nothing about the creation of the universe. It simply describes an expansion occurance 13.7 billion years ago from a prior state, and the model describes occurances from the Planck time onwards from this prior state, that we can describe events from the Planck Time until the end of BB nucleosynthesis.

The laws of General Relativity break down as you approach the prior entropy state, until Planck Time. According to BB theory, nothing can be known about the pre-Planck Time existence, all we know is that the universe expanded outwards from some prior very low entropy state when presumably the symmetry in the four disngaged forces were unified. There was no matter, it would have been too excited and broken down, due to Planck's Constant. This system was extremely unstable and collapsed into our present system. Remember, when one intuitively speak of "time" you are speaking of time as a progression. I am referring to the Lorentz Manifold, the causal structure. This applies to Minkowski and Non-Minkowski space. So, it is unhelpful to say that time "did not exist" before BB.

In this regard, it is necessary to consider time, being that we are describing, after all the expansion of space-time, not as a "river" that flows in one direction, but as invariant, as demonstrated in Physics.

According to the Lorentz Matrices, time, strictly speaking, is invariant, it has no direction and there is no reason it should. This is demonstrated by the light-cone experiments, which can be causal-chronological or chronological-causal. Time is not a thing unto itself, being relative to the observer, but absolute space-time is. The concept of time as we understand it is quite simple to begin with. In a 2D Euclidean manifold, with two vectors, the square of the displacement of a body will be equal to the squares of the sum of the vectors. This is Pythagoras' theorom: x^2+y^2=h^2. This can be extended to incorporate a Z axis: x^2+y^2+z^2=h^2.

Minkowski realized that if a 3D body displaced a 3D Euclidean manifold, than (and this fit perfectly into the contradiction Einstein found between Maxwell's equations and the Galilean Transformations), time could be included as being displaced as well, along a 4D manifold called Minkowski space. In this scenario, time simply becomes another unit of measurment, the same of length, width and breadth, which can be displaced. THe equation derived for this simply follows the same rule of transformation: x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=h^2. This works tidily since c is constant in all frames of reference, although it needs some righting since it is unhelpful to vector something to an imaginary number, i which is formally r(-1), and since squared, becomes: x&2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=h^2. In this scenario, time has no direction, although it still has causality (since it is a part of a topological structure instead of an abstraction), that causality, described by the causal manifold, an extensive topic in Relativity, can go, as the experiment demonstrated, both ways. Nonetheless, it is gibberish to speak of causality without the manifold (no values can be inserted into the equations).

The gist is that all the BB says is that the universe expanded from a symmetrical low entropy state which may have been a false vacuum which inflated, via which the force disengagement could have been created and matter could form since it is no longer too excited below Planck temperature. According to this formula: Tp=mpc^2/k=r(hr)c^5/Gk^2, matter breaks down at the Planck Temperature, 10^32K. It is nonsense to speak of matter being "hotter" since temperature is a measure of particle kinetics. In the low-entropy state, there wasn't any matter, it becomes interchangeable with energy. This is described by the mass-energy equivalence, or E=mc^2. As for the energy in question which formed matter by this equation, that was most certainly not generated in the process. It was a necessary antecedant for the phase transition called the Big Bang. The phase transition itself, or BB, is the result of the decay that is dictated by that the original state was of lower entropy than at present. Although we are unsure precisely how the original state collapsed, there are at least 100 competing proposals, and time will tell which is correct.

A symmetry in physics equations is generated by the ability to interchange expressions in an equation. Thanks to Weinberg and Salam, we can interchange all three leptons in an electric field, which gives it SU(3) symmetry. The ruling of the universe is dictated by SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) symmetry, regarding the simplest particles that make up the universe. In the singularity during the Planck era of the universe (10^-43 seconds), the collapse of the false vacuum led to the breaking of the symmetry from SU(5) to what we see today. Symmetry breaking is not properly understood, and very difficult to solve. Gravity was the first force to disengage, giving a SU(4) x U(1) symmetry. The breaking off of the other three, including electromagnetism, generated the asymmetry we see today, which explains why the electron has a negative charge (the electromagnetic force). There was no charge in the symmetry. None at all. Being that the universe iwas orignally in a state of symmetry, there is no charge in the entire universe. The electromagnetic force works both ways, it attracts and it repels (unlike gravity, which is purely attractive). It's attraction/repulsion is very, very precisely balanced, to the tune of 10^-32 electron volts difference, which is probably experimental error. This is good because the electromagnetic force is tremendously powerful, almost 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times more powerful than gravity (this explains why you can cancel the entire gravity of the Earth by picking up bits of paper with the static electricty of your comb). And that means that if the electromagnetic force was any less balanced, you would be ripped to shreds instantly.

Given your misunderstanding, you've all but certainly erred by referencing Christian apologetics websites, which generally speaking, are not versed in Big Bang cosmology, and therefore should not be taken seriously. The misunderstanding that BB describes ex nihilo creation which violates the most fundamental laws of physics is surely the greatest error ever propogated in popular science, perhaps superseded only by the claim that DNA is a language.

Bifurcation and its variants are often abused in the debate process, much of the time by theists. Bifurcation is more commonly known by its other name: The fallacy of false dichotomy (the opposite of which is the fallacy of denying the correlative). In a bifurcation fallacy, a debater introduces two possibilities and only two possibilities where more actually exist, attempting to falsely dichotomize the situation to make a point. This is all too common in debate. Examples of false dichotomies are endless.

There are two formal complementary fallacies called the denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent, both of which are linked to the false dichotomy fallacy and are also oft-used. A denying the antecedent is formally expressed as:

If P then Q

~P

~Q

If I snort cocaine, I am a drug user

I do not snort cocaine

Therefore, I am not a drug user

This argument is fallacious, since snorting cocaine is not necessarily the only way in which someone could be a drug user, therefore, just because someone does not snort cocaine does not necessarily mean they are not drug users. They might be addicted to other substances.

In set theory, a denying the antecedent is essentially misinterpreting the statement:” P is a subset of Q” to mean “P=Q”. Just because P (snorting cocaine) is a possibility within set Q (drug user) does not necessarily mean it is the only possibility.

The converse fallacy is Affirming the consequent, which is expressed as:

If P then Q

Q

P

An example being:

If I attend a country club, I am wealthy

I am wealthy

Therefore, I attend a country club.

This is the exact opposite of DTA. Instead of falsely stating that if P is a subset of Q, P and only P represents Q, we are now saying that if P (attending a country club) is a possible subset of Q (being wealthy) then from Q we can automatically conclude P. This is false. It is also known as reverse causation: If attending a country club necessarily implies being wealthy then being wealthy necessarily implies attending to a country club. This is fallacious.

However, we must be careful. This argument can be rectified by replacing “if” with “iff”, which means if and only if. (ie justified biconditional premises) Such situations, however, rarely arise.

Now, let us begin with all this in mind. Some of the arguments about to be put forth have already been expressed by me here:

Let us begin with something simple pertaining to false dichotomy fallacy. Many theists argue, fallaciously, for the existence of God based on the idea that existence is too complex and intricate to have formed randomly, and often attempt to make a fallacy of conflation between “not God” and “randomness.

The bifurcation occurs because the argument rests on the false dichotomy that “if not God, then chance”. This is fallacious because there is a third alternative (hence, we have a triconditional premise, which means that bifurcation is fallacious). That third alternative is natural process, which is not random, which is guided by the laws of physics and chemistry and such, but has no conscious will behind it. The bifurcation occurs because the theist makes the unjustified assertion that conscious will (ie a “mind” such as “the mind of God”) is necessary to create the order we see around us because it cannot be random. While it is true it cannot be random, this does not necessarily imply that it must have conscious guidance, because that fallaciously implies that we have a dichotomy between “conscious will” and “randomness”. In reality, we have unconscious, but certainly not random, processes which form the order we see. The process of biological evolution, for example, is blind-guided. But it is most certainly the absolute and precise opposite of randomness. This is true of vast numbers of natural processes which explain why things are the way they are, from star formation and cycles to geological columns . Everything down to the quantum level and up to the macrocosmic scale is governed by sets of physical and chemical laws which have no consciousness behind them, but still produce complex Order. In reality, the natural processes which do produce the order we see around us are extremely complex and anything but random. They are much, much more capable of producing natural order and complexity than we are at producing artificial complexity.

I admit, this one is quite instinctual. Since we are conscious entities, we tend to have some confirmation bias on the necessity of consciousness for anything to occur which is not random. In reality, this is not the case (and it just begs the question anyway). The problem is that we are used to the notion that only conscious entities may produce complexities, because that is what we do (this is why the unusually dim may compare natural structures and order to our artificially generated devices such as watches as per Paley). Hence, we tend to fallaciously conflate “not conscious” with “random”. This is a bifurcation which is false.

Many theists hence make the following statements

“Evolution is just randomness”

“abiogenesis (actually, most of them, fallaciously, say “evolution”) says that a bunch of molecules randomly collided to make life

Or more usually “evolution (again, fallacy of conflation) says that life came from rocks” (Take note, Hovind, this is factually false as well as fallacious)

“The Big Bang was just an explosion which was purely random”

And then use these falsehoods (which are based on the false dichotomization of “randomness” and “God” to make the following a posteriori statements:

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

They say because they don't hear any booming voices or see something crazy

I for one happen to see lots of crazy things and hear plenty of voices in my head, and still dont believe... but i guess no one ever put it in perspective for me like that J.F. If Crazy things and listening to the voices help me find God, then... by God, im willing to give her a shot!

Thank you J.F

You've just changed my life

(And subsequently, the lives of everything i come into contact with >.> muahaha)

PS: REAL original name! +1 to uber >.>

PPS: Deluded, i dont think any one has enough time in their week to READ that speel, let alone understand it ^_^

You may be able to poke holes of discrepancy into Theism, but God can take the root out of Atheism.

I say: take a closer look at those discrepancies. If God inspired the Bible, there shouldn't *be* any discrepancies. God, after all, is supposed to be perfect. The Bible is supposed to be inspired such that all of those things, and only those things that God wanted in the Bible are in fact in it. So why would an omniscient being display ignorance of the value of pi...and the fact that trees *are* plants...and the fact that bats are *not* birds...etc.? Why would an omnibenevolent God display jealousy, murderousness, intolerance, coersion, and a maddening lack of clarity coupled with an absolute demand that "his children" gain a correct understanding of his wishes...upon pain of eternal damnation if they fail? Why would an omniscient and completely honest God...lie to his prophets...and thus give false propheices...when his own standard for prophecy is allegedly 100% accuracy?

And don't forget the big picture: do not all of these things, taken together, precisely "take the root out of Theism?" (Individually, they may be surmountable; but all of these problems occur within the *same* Bible, and thus together they *destroy* the Bible's claim to divine authorship.)

As for the cosmological argument, that argument used to persuade me, too. It was only when I kept trying to justify my religion as being God's (and that failed,) and then I tried to find out which other religion might be his favorite (and ran into very familiar difficulties, such that I eventually started thinking "Not this crap, again!&quot that it started to sink in that there was something fundamentally wrong with the entire idea of religion. Now what I am--albeit slowly--coming to understand about the cosmological argument is:

1. This argument ultimately rests on the idea that any given effect can only be produced by something greater than itself. This idea is wrong. (I am here indebted to Professor Dawkins for pointing out the consciousness-raising effects of evolution by natural selection in his book "The God Delusion.&quot

2. That the cosmological argument, as usually stated, (...and as you seem to imply...) starts by saying, in effect, that every effect *must* have a cause...and then ignoring the fact that God can be seen as an effect. So then, the question that Subdi Visions asked you is perfectly logical: who, or what, created God? How did God get here? It will not do to create "special rules" for God, as that means throwing away your own implication that *every* effect must have a cause. It is a violation of your own standard for discussion. I would like to see your reply to this question.

There is nothing illogical about the idea that god is not created but that this little section of reality called our universe was created. It does not follow that an uncreated entity is incapable of creation. Your are assuming that all existence is either uncaused or caused. These are not mutually exclusive. And of course evidence of that entity's existence and the subsequent causation of this uiniverse is a different question.

Well, if a creator can be uncaused so can the Universe. Therefore, the arguement that their had to have been a creator is null. You can't pick and choose when you want a cause and not a cause.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."

When you tell us who created this god, when you tell us how can god come from nothing, you will have something worth saying. Otherwise you will be ignored.

If you can say god came from nothing, we can say the universe came from nothing.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

The basic reason for most peoples' disbelief in God is that they don't see evidence of God. They say because they don't hear any booming voices or see something crazy and some because they feel like if there was a God, their life would be so much better, or the world in general. There are other reasons, but this is besides the point. The fact is, atheists don't accept the evidence right in front of them. There is an entire world, galaxy, and universe around us. God's evidence is in His creation. Trees, mountains, the ocean, stars, galaxies, and the people reading this post right now are all part of God's creation. For there to be creation, there must be a Creator; a cause for the effect. Now, you can say that all this came as a result of the "Big Bang," but that had to come from something, too. Existence didn't just happen, something had to start it. Since this site is called 'rational,' let's be rational for a second. How could something come out of nothing? How could this immense universe just spontaneously exist? Believing in an all- powerful God you can't see seems to make more sense than believing everything we know to exist just happened or came to be. You may be able to poke holes of discrepancy into Theism, but God can take the root out of Atheism.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

-Jesus Christ

I do not believe because I have read more cosmology books than you have, even if I've only read one. I do not believe because I probably know the creation story in genesis better than you do, and it contradicts itself numerous times, and proposes biologically impossible scenarios. I do not believe because my grasp of common sense is obviously firmer than yours. I do not believe because because I've come to terms with my fear of death, and will not sell out my convictions to purchase your fictional security blanket.

There's a reason why only children believe in fairies, santa claus and the easter bunny, and that is because their lack of understanding of how the world works allows them to believe things that aren't real. Most of it is not their fault, because their minds could not possibly grasp many of the principles that render these concepts ridiculous. You do not have this excuse, christian. Your mind is developed enough, you have the capacity to understand, therefore you are either too afraid, too stubborn, or inexcusably too ignorant to admit it.

Your selling yourself short, pal. And you know it, even if you won't admit it. Look under the bed, what's not there is the first step on the road to discovery and real truth. Be all you can be.

The fact is, atheists don't accept the evidence right in front of them.

And the fact is, your argument is circular. If a somewhat-complex thing needs a creator, therefore does not a infinitely-more-complex thing need a creator? Let's say for the sake of argument that an atheist-loving God created your God. Go figure.

Ok....let me get this straight, the reason you believe in god is because your little mind cannot fathom that fact that all of this could have occurred naturally without any necessity of a god? Because of course to state that god always has been and doesn't need a creator, then why does nature need a creator?

Why does things that are naturally "created" need a supernatural or an outside creator, everything has had a natural explanation of how it came to be, water, planets, stars, the galaxy etc, etc, etc....yet somehow you have the requirement to add god to the equation because you cannot fathom otherwise...hmm interesting, your ignorance and the inability to comprehend natural process of this universe has lead you to believe in god? That's what I am getting from your statement there. So sorry, I can't believe in god because I see no reason for god, no explanation why your god is any more real than any other god or deities that have been created by man to explain the things they cannot explain or do not wish to deal with (such as death) why not the hindu gods? Native american god etc, etc, etc, all these gods have an explanation to creation of the universe and of life, what makes them less believable than your god?

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat

Now, you can say that all this came as a result of the "Big Bang," but that had to come from something, too. Existence didn't just happen, something had to start it. Since this site is called 'rational,' let's be rational for a second. How could something come out of nothing? How could this immense universe just spontaneously exist?

Not sure whether anyone has mentioned this yet, but the big bang is simply the point to which we can trace the universe back to using the physics that has been worked out. What caused the big bang, or what came before the big bang, is unknown. We are not afraid to say 'we don't know'. This does not mean 'god did it', it means we just don't know. So we are not saying the universe simply sprung from nowhere.

And you know one thing, not knowing the answer doesn't scare me, not one bit. i feel quite comfortable not knowing. It would be nice to find out, but it seems that is something we may not know for a long time, if ever.

Perhaps something about theists is that they are too scared to let go and just be happy with not having a definite answer.

Since this site is called 'rational,' let's be rational for a second. How could something come out of nothing? How could this immense universe just spontaneously exist? Believing in an all- powerful God you can't see seems to make more sense than believing everything we know to exist just happened or came to be.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

-Jesus Christ

I have a rational response to this question : Humm.... Let's say an all-powerful God came out of nowhere, snapped his big fingers and bang! Here we are. Now that explains everything !

Why can't you guys understand that we don't know what the fuck is going on in this universe ?

What allows you, ignorance aside, to say that there is a God out there ?

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968romancedlife.blogspot.com

There is nothing illogical about the idea that god is not created but that this little section of reality called our universe was created. It does not follow that an uncreated entity is incapable of creation. Your are assuming that all existence is either uncaused or caused. These are not mutually exclusive. And of course evidence of that entity's existence and the subsequent causation of this uiniverse is a different question.

Well, if a creator can be uncaused so can the Universe. Therefore, the arguement that their had to have been a creator is null. You can't pick and choose when you want a cause and not a cause.

This is also illogical. Our universe could be uncaused, but that is not required by the existence of an uncaused entity. And I'm not picking and choosing, just pointing out possibilities.

Well, if a creator can be uncaused so can the Universe. Therefore, the arguement that their had to have been a creator is null. You can't pick and choose when you want a cause and not a cause.

This is also illogical. Our universe could be uncaused, but that is not required by the existence of an uncaused entity. And I'm not picking and choosing, just pointing out possibilities.

It is not illogical and you are making my point. There can be an uncaused universe. Therefore, the arguement that it had to be caused is irrellevent if their are both possibilities. One thing you can't say is the Universe is caused but the creator is not just so you can have it your way. This may be true (highly, highly doubt it!!), but you have no evidence that it is true. Therefore, you are purely speculating, which means the arguement is weak. If you claim that the Universe was caused you have to give an explanation of what created the creator or say that he was not caused. However, you would just be making things up.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."

You silly science rationalist logicists everyone knows how the universe began, it involves a ever so slightly drunk entity made of 2 infinite sized meatballs and an awful lot of noodly appendages. And yes the beer did exist before the FSM got drunk and after it using the process of Noodle Logic.

When will my fellow theists realise that all logicists understead is reason, evidence and scientific theory. Trying to argue with them is like trying to explain to someone who has never drunk beer what good grog is like. They have to come to the FSM love just by accepting him (and drinking too much on a Friday night)

If whatever 'causes' some phenomenon to occur has to be at least as great, or greater than, or more complex, or more intelligent than, what it causes to happen, then we have a serious logical problem of infinite regression.

But if the 'cause' may be lesser, or less complex, than what it effects, like the last snowflake that triggers an avalanche, like the warm patch of ocean that causes a hurricane, the cloud of cosmic dust and gas that condenses into a solar system of star and planets, the formless solution of salt that crystallises into an intricate collection of regular solid shapes, etc, etc....then even an infinite backward regression may be traced back in finite time to an originating infinitesimal quantum twitch. Remember that we can specify an infinite sequence of numbers that add up to a finite sum, as long as each number is less than the one before by a constant factor:

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + .... = 2.

We see examples of order and complexity arising out of formlessness and chaos, not everywhere, but more than enough places and times to make the emergence of life itself on at least one planet in countless billions not too much of a stretch.

Heck, every time we see the complexity and consciousness of an adult human being growing from the union of two microscopic blobs of protoplasm, we see proof that complexity can grow spontaneously.

The fact is, atheists don't accept the evidence right in front of them. There is an entire world, galaxy, and universe around us. God's evidence is in His creation. Trees, mountains, the ocean, stars, galaxies, and the people reading this post right now are all part of God's creation.

You fail before you even begin. Why would an infinite God have created the universe, when the universe could just as well be infinite? Scientifically speaking, God is more disproven than the existence of the tooth fairy. It's also a completely pointless idea. Your ignorance and bad logic shines in this post.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

For there to be creation, there must be a Creator;

Of course there has to. But are you sure that the universe is "a creation"? Why is there no scientific evidence for this creator? If you try to argue that evolution and modern cosmology is a fraud, it is an argument that can't be won.

If you claim that the Universe was caused you have to give an explanation of what created the creator or say that he was not caused.

Why do you insist on reading more into this than I stated? The ONLY thing I stated is that you cannot conclude anything about whether the universe is caused based on the properties of god. If god is a caused entity, then god can cause the universe. If god is an uncaused entity, god can STILL cause the universe. I made NO claim about whether or not god was caused.

I'm not going to try to reply to all of you individually, so ill try to simply reply to what I see to be the general consensus of all those who have posted here.

First of all, Conor, the last debate was more focused on the fact that many people try to think of God logically when He actually transcends all logic. I believe that pretty much knocks out all other arguments to this point since they, too, are trying to be logical when talking about a God which is above anything we can think of or possibly imagine and is definitely above any essays, theories, or anything else any human being can try to come up with. I should also say that the 'discrepancies' I mentioned in the first post would be more accurately described as misunderstandings. A lot of people see something in the Bible that doesn't seem to make sense to them or appears to contradict something else in the Bible and shut it off. God is mysterious, and the human writers of the Bible where alive only very long ago, so we're not going to understand everything, and we don't have to as long as we have faith.

Also, my statements about the reasons for disbelief are based on what I've heard from other atheists. Often times, I'll hear something like,"Where is the evidence of God?","I've never seen any miracles, so there can't be a god," or,"If there is a God, why is there so much evil or bad in the world?" These are basically the most common responses I've heard from people who don't believe in God, and, I think, atheists in general. If I'm wrong about that, then just let me know.

As for the big question, where did God come from/ who created the creator, there is an answer which I am afraid most of you won't accept. Simply, God is. Often, when someone asked God who He was, he simply answered,"I am." Christ also took this name once or twice. The name 'Yahweh' literally means "to be." I say most of you won't accept this answer because it isn't hard evidence. It is only what we understand from the Bible. I'm just saying that when something comes from nothing, it just makes more sense to believe in the Divine rather than science.

I'm sorry, but if it you need absolute, exact, hard evidence, then the Kingdom of God is not for you. This sounds harsh, but it is true. Belief in God is not about knowing, it is about believing. It's about faith, not science. I should say, I don't believe in God because divine creation makes more sense than spontaneous existence, that's just what I bring up to try to convince you of the Truth. I believe in God because of what I know He does in my life and the lives of countless others.

As an added note, I don't put my "ears to hear" quote in automatically and actually type it so I know that those who read my posts know I say it every time.

Why? Sig function does the same thing, you save yourself keystrokes.

Will daddy smite you if you dont promote him in every post?

There was a poster I ran into who, like you, didnt use the sig function and always typed, "That is all" at the end of every one of his posts.

What you are doing is nothing more than a useless rituall that merely makes you feel good. It adds nothing to the post. If you are going to reapeat something you like, put it in your sig like everyone else and spare yourself the carple tunnel.

I dont think it has to do anything with god as much as it has to do with wanting to stand out. I'd suggest you'd do better with your substance than your repitition.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

I'm not going to try to reply to all of you individually, so ill try to simply reply to what I see to be the general consensus of all those who have posted here.

First of all, Conor, the last debate was more focused on the fact that many people try to think of God logically when He actually transcends all logic.

This is an evasion, an ad hoc, and begs the question.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

I believe that pretty much knocks out all other arguments to this point since they, too, are trying to be logical when talking about a God which is above anything we can think of or possibly imagine and is definitely above any essays, theories, or anything else any human being can try to come up with.

Then either you don't have an argument, or you've forfeited any basis to reject an argument that claims the same privilege.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

I should also say that the 'discrepancies' I mentioned in the first post would be more accurately described as misunderstandings. A lot of people see something in the Bible that doesn't seem to make sense to them or appears to contradict something else in the Bible and shut it off. God is mysterious, and the human writers of the Bible where alive only very long ago, so we're not going to understand everything, and we don't have to as long as we have faith.

Then it's special pleading to suppose any part was translated or understood correctly.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

Also, my statements about the reasons for disbelief are based on what I've heard from other atheists. Often times, I'll hear something like,"Where is the evidence of God?","I've never seen any miracles, so there can't be a god," or,"If there is a God, why is there so much evil or bad in the world?" These are basically the most common responses I've heard from people who don't believe in God, and, I think, atheists in general. If I'm wrong about that, then just let me know.

You're in a forum for atheists -- why bring a straw-man into it when you can just ask or read? Because you think you can dismiss the position with a few trite arguments.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

As for the big question, where did God come from/ who created the creator, there is an answer which I am afraid most of you won't accept. Simply, God is.

Because it's one of any possible arbitrary terminations to the infinite regress posed. The Cosmological Argument is self-refuting. It states the premise that everything needs a cause, and immediately breaks that rule via an ad hoc.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

Often, when someone asked God who He was, he simply answered,"I am." Christ also took this name once or twice. The name 'Yahweh' literally means "to be." I say most of you won't accept this answer because it isn't hard evidence. It is only what we understand from the Bible.

Your criteria is that it's written down by anonymous authors, basically.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

I'm just saying that when something comes from nothing, it just makes more sense to believe in the Divine rather than science.

You're begging the question.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

I'm sorry, but if it you need absolute, exact, hard evidence, then the Kingdom of God is not for you.

And again.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

This sounds harsh, but it is true.

And again.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

Belief in God is not about knowing, it is about believing.

It would have to be, since you don't know anything.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

It's about faith, not science. I should say, I don't believe in God because divine creation makes more sense than spontaneous existence, that's just what I bring up to try to convince you of the Truth.

You've just moved "spontaneous existence," as you oddly phrase it, back one step to account for your unsubstantiated god as the terminus to the infinite regress of the Cosmological Argument.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

I believe in God because of what I know He does in my life and the lives of countless others.

I believe in God because of what I know He does in my life and the lives of countless others.

magilum wrote:

Mmm. Kool-Aid.

DAMN, I JUST FIGURED OUT HOW TO REVERSE THE RESSION AND BALANCE THE NATIONAL DEPT!

Think about it, Magilum, if we invest in Kool-Aid we could tax the crap out of it considering the billions of lemmings willing to drink it for their fictional leader.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

The basic reason for most peoples' disbelief in God is that they don't see evidence of God. They say because they don't hear any booming voices or see something crazy and some because they feel like if there was a God, their life would be so much better, or the world in general. There are other reasons, but this is besides the point. The fact is, atheists don't accept the evidence right in front of them. There is an entire world, galaxy, and universe around us. God's evidence is in His creation. Trees, mountains, the ocean, stars, galaxies, and the people reading this post right now are all part of God's creation. For there to be creation, there must be a Creator;

Indeed. I agree a creation must have a creator. But why does this apply to the universe or existence? I'm not sure why you label the unievrse as being a creation? There is no evidence that it was created as such.

Quote:

a cause for the effect. Now, you can say that all this came as a result of the "Big Bang," but that had to come from something, too.

Why?

Really why did it have to come from something? There is no particular reason why it had to. So why are you so certain it did?

Quote:

Existence didn't just happen, something had to start it.

Why? There is no particular reason to supose that its not alwyas been around for ever. Has there ever been a single example of matter/energy being detsroyed or created? NO I think not. All the evidence would suggest that matter/energy can not be created or destroyed so why do you suppose that they where created?

Quote:

Since this site is called 'rational,' let's be rational for a second. How could something come out of nothing?

I don't know how could it? Your the one proposing that matter was created somehow not me. I'm quite happy to say there has always been something and that matter was never created its always been there in one form or another.

So please answer your own question how did something come from nothing? I just know your gonna say God but that really ain';t an answer is it because then it didn't come from nothing it came from God and you then need to account from where he came from or was he around forever? But if you say he is eternal and thus concede that somethings are eternal then why not just cut out the middle man with a sharp occams razor and say that matter/energy is eternal?

Quote:

How could this immense universe just spontaneously exist?

I don't know I don't think it did I'm not a creationist!

Quote:

Believing in an all- powerful God you can't see seems to make more sense than believing everything we know to exist just happened or came to be.

Actually it does not because it firstly fails to answer the origionla question (magic is not an answer) and secondly it throws up another question i.e. how did god spontaniously come to be. So really the God hypothesis answer nothing and throws up another question. So out comes occams razor again....

Quote:

You may be able to poke holes of discrepancy into Theism, but God can take the root out of Atheism.

Theism has so many holes in it that its just one big fucking hole these days. Atheism really says nothing at all about the beginings of the universe other than it was not God wot dun it by magic. I'm happy to say that I really don't think that the God Magicking the universe into existence hypothesis is true, its up there along side the "Giant space goat farted the universe into existence" theory or the "Universe was the result of the sqeezing of a zit on the chin of the celestial sky pixie" theory. They are all equally absurd.

Your arguments are those of a desperate, pathetic person, rants, if you will. Your points boiled down to the following.

Your primary point was that this entity in that you believe cannot be understood by reasoned means. You even had the idiotic gall to claim that such a statement on your part was an ace-in-the-hole argument. Firstly, such a statement is inherently self-refuting. If human cognizance is a tool by which no knowledge of this being could be gleaned, this claim fatally undermines itself, since the assertion requires you to assert knowledge of this being! Secondly, your assertions are based on a self-refuting premise, that reason functions like empirical laws, applying in some cases but not in others. All of your statements require you to employ the propositions you are attacking hence fatally undermining your own claim. Thirdly, you are just appealling to anti-intellectualism, telling your opponent they are literally thinking too much. Fourth, your assertion is just that, an assertion. In this same manner your proposition is self-refuting because if the human faculties of reason cannot derive knowledge of this entity under discussion, then you have hence fatally undermined your own basis for making the assertion that human cognizance cannot gain knowledge of this entity/ being, since you are claiming such knowledge! Fifth, you talk as though reason was on equal footing with faith, which is patent nonsense because (i) logical law does not consitute an epistemology, it antecedes knowledge. I suggest you pick up Descartes' Meditations and read it. Sixth, your assertion is ad hoc question begging because you haven't actually derived the proposition from anywhere, (that would fatally undermine your claim since it require the employment of reasoned argument), you've merely asserted it to rescue your belief from internal contradiction. I would quickly derive a reductio ad absurdum using your assertion, since absolutely any belief could accomodate that assertion that you made, many of them mutually contradictory. However, in all cases the assertion that some function, thing, entity, being, concept x cannot be understood by human cognizance or reason will fall prey to exactly the same problems as I already outlined. If you think your vapid idiocy is an ace in the hole argument, think again. What you are actually trying to do is desperately, pathetically, hold arguments at arm's length because you don't have the mental capacity to answer them. If this is the best you can do, you will be laughed out of the room.The best part is, since you've made this self-refuting assertion, you've also undermined every single epistemic claim henceforth you have made about this God entity. You've made claims pertaining to its nature, existence and such. Yet your assertion that reasoning faculty cannot bring about such knowledge hence undermines all claims you've made henceforth.

Overall, you've made a special pleading fallacy throughout your entire malevolently idiotic post. You've argued for the introduction of a special characteristic into the equation without justification for it. This special characteristic represents your ad hoc attempt to sidestep the fact that the useless chunk of grey matter between your ears could not possibly comprehend real argument even if it tried, which it hasn't, by the way. Any attempt to justify why this special characteristic is there would fatally undermine the assertion upon which your previous assertion (that it cannot be understood by reason) is built. In other words, you've shot yourself in the foot. If you attempt to justify the claim, you've fatally undermined the claim that reason does not apply, since you've affirmed that reasoned argument is necessary to justify a proposition. But if you sit mute, then your idiotic idea is still just an ad hoc special pleading fallacy which there is absolutely no reason to accept, and there is every reason to reject, since it is self-refuting. It is time for you to admit that this blindly repeated statement on your part is impossible to maintain, does not constitute an argument, and is a desperate ploy on your part.

Next, your response to the requested answer to the "big questions" is ad hoc. You have not derived the proposition "God is" from anywhere. You've merely asserted it by virtue of its capacity to answer your interlocutors. To put it bluntly: You just made that up.

Finally, you did not actually answer any of your interlocutors, particularly me. You ranted incoherently pertaining to meaningless, self-refuting ad hoc statements. You tried to hold arguments at arm's length by employing statements that have no intrinsic meaning and ad hocs asserted solely by virtue of whether you think they can sufficiently answer your opponent, instead of being derived from anywhere. Since you probably don't know, an ad hoc is a response specifically inserted into a proposition to avoid it being falsified. An example is creationists who make claims about "light in transit" or parapsychologists who claim that the presence of skeptics pollutes the experiment. An ad hoc which is also self-refuting is your claim about human cognizance and reasoning faculty and hence your remarkable knowledge, as a human, of this being you claimed beyond human cognizance.

You have a duty to answer the arguments of your interlocutors. At present you have not done this, in fact I suspect you can't do this. But what you have hitherto employed is not acceptable. You must concede that your claim about reason is shooting itself in the foot, and that you are only making it because you don't have the mental capacity to put together a real argument.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

As an added note, I don't put my "ears to hear" quote in automatically and actually type it so I know that those who read my posts know I say it every time.

Cheap shot: except this one.

Please tell me how you are actually trying to have a conversation or convince someone of your position instead of preaching. If you claim that your god is above such petty things as logic and attainable human knowledge, you can't make arguments about it. So what are you doing?

And don't pull an "I'm just sayin'" here. You are not trying to simply dispel some common misconception, or trying to explain a point we have not grasped; we understand, and we reject.

More likely, you are actively trying to convince the readers of this site, at the very least, that the god you believe in exists. To do that, you can't both claim to have arguments for your position and that arguments can never apply against your position.

Back off the "god is above logic" stance, or admit you're either wrong or preaching.

So god is above all reason and logic.....wait for it here.....god is above all logic and reason, yet god loves us...but he is beyond understanding, yet the bible makes clear statements about god, what he stands for and what he can do....so he is logically speaking, not beyond reason or logic.....however because you don't have any evidence for god, nor is there any for your god in particular, and you still cannot fathom that energy cannot destroyed or created and always has been in one for or another per se, that the universe cannot have come forth from the massive release of energy from a gravitational singularity, as such it HAS TO BE GOD, because you lack the intelligence or the ability to comphrend science and the possibility that no god is required. Oh and for your ignorance again to be corrected, where in the theory of the big bang does it state everything came from NOTHING...because last time I check it state a singularity....which was infinity dense and extremely high temperature (read into this LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF STORED ENERGY)

First of all, Conor, the last debate was more focused on the fact that many people try to think of God logically when He actually transcends all logic. I believe that pretty much knocks out all other arguments to this point since they, too, are trying to be logical when talking about a God which is above anything we can think of or possibly imagine and is definitely above any essays, theories, or anything else any human being can try to come up with

My $0.02: Sorry...jesusFREAK41, but here you're simply wrong. I know this for a fact, because I grew up in a Christian Church, which fully believed in the transcendance of God, and in the inadequacy of human language to rise fully to the level of the divine...and none of that stopped anyone from applying logic to the doctrines. (It was, of course, applied badly, and frequently in an effort to justify that which has no basis...but my point is that the attempt was still made, and *not* regarded as invalid for all of God's transcendance. So I'm not buying this.

You also said:

I should also say that the 'discrepancies' I mentioned in the first post would be more accurately described as misunderstandings. A lot of people see something in the Bible that doesn't seem to make sense to them or appears to contradict something else in the Bible and shut it off. God is mysterious, and the human writers of the Bible where alive only very long ago, so we're not going to understand everything, and we don't have to as long as we have faith.

My $0.02: As many others have noted, this is nothing more than an excuse to avoid having to deal with the issues. I understand--quite clearly--that this is extremely unpleasant for you, as you most likely fear that you will end up in Hell if you think about this too much. I understand this, because I've been there. But here's the problem with that approach: the issues don't go away. The problematic verses in the Bible (...and they are many...) will not go away, and will not stop being a part of the Bible, just because you close your eyes to them. I can tell you this much: once you work past your fear, you will see that there has been nothing to fear.

One final quote from you:

I'm sorry, but if it you need absolute, exact, hard evidence, then the Kingdom of God is not for you. This sounds harsh, but it is true. Belief in God is not about knowing, it is about believing. It's about faith, not science.

My $0.02: You *do* realize...don't you?...that you have just admitted that your entire effort to convince atheists of God's existence (...an effort which *always* and *necessarily* entails logic, argumentation, and evidence...) is pointless? By your own admission, there is no reason for you to be here, as you have just admitted that you *cannot* do that which you are allegedly here to do. Think about it.

Conor

P.S.: I notice that you very consistently answer me directly, by name, whereas you do not seem to do this, at all, with anyone else. I am wondering: why?

I'm just saying that when something comes from nothing, it just makes more sense to believe in the Divine rather than science.

Of course it is. The existence of God would make much more sense rather than naturalistic explanations. That is the only reason why people might believe that belief in God would be rational. But why would the universe have to follow anyone's common sense? In the big picture of the universe, we are all equal to nothing.

jesusFREAK41 wrote:

I'm sorry, but if it you need absolute, exact, hard evidence, then the Kingdom of God is not for you. This sounds harsh, but it is true. Belief in God is not about knowing, it is about believing. It's about faith, not science. I should say, I don't believe in God because divine creation makes more sense than spontaneous existence, that's just what I bring up to try to convince you of the Truth. I believe in God because of what I know He does in my life and the lives of countless others.

You contradicted yourself:

"I'm sorry, but if it you need absolute, exact, hard evidence, then the Kingdom of God is not for you"

"It's about faith, not science."

<=>

"I should say, I don't believe in God because divine creation makes more sense than spontaneous existence, that's just what I bring up to try to convince you of the Truth."

What "truth"? In the modern world, truth is mostly governed by scientific evidence. Science says you're wrong.

How could something come out of nothing? How could this immense universe just spontaneously exist? Believing in an all- powerful God you can't see seems to make more sense than believing everything we know to exist just happened or came to be. You may be able to poke holes of discrepancy into Theism, but God can take the root out of Atheism.

let's be rational for a second. Something can't come from nothing. Since there is something, there was never nothing. Your logic amounts to saying that god is nothing since before something there was only god. god = nothing. So what you have said is only what we atheists already agree with and at the same time managed to disagree with yourself. Do you know what contradiction means?

I refuse to argue any further. It appears that all that I've said is futile and useless on all of you. Do realize that I am not here to argue a point or to convince you of the existence of God. I realize that's what I've been doing, but I'm preaching to an unwilling audience. My purpose in posting here was to try to lead all of you to the truth, but the Truth of God can only come to those who are searching for Him. Say what you want, but you can't avoid the truth. God can't be bound by laws or time; those are the facts. That is my argument. God can't be described by man, though many of us have tried. I know that most of you won't accept this, but I pray that you do.